Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@apwill,
are we going to start the whole "anywhere" vs. "table" thing again? The problem is that RAW aren't clear enough because the "table" was never defined so we all have our opinion of what the "table" is; to you the "table" includes anything anywhere near the surface of some object with 4 legs (including my hand, I guess); whereas I interpret the table as the battlefield and my models have no relation to the "ground" they're running on.

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

apwill4765 wrote:BRB:

"A skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain" pg 71.

So if your assumption is correct and a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain, it would not longer be on the table.

It's really a VERY simple abstraction to know what "on the table" means. The deepstrike rules state anywhere on the table. In this situation the rule is not referring to the actual physical plane of the battlefield, meaning you must set it literally "on the table". In this case it means anywhere within the field of play. Now, before you say "oh well then I will deploy 15 inches above the table!", this is obviously not legal. There are two cases that result from placing deepstriking units on other units.

1. A hit or short scatter is rolled and a mishap occurs. Normal units roll the mishap table, and do not actually land on other units. The Mawlocs damages the unit with the survivors being moved out of the way.

2. A long scatter is rolled and the unit is placed as normal.

Neither of these cases requires the mawloc or any units actually be placed on top of other models.

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, just because you might not have a reason to do so, does not mean that they cannot do it, which is what GBF seems to be arguing, despite Spore Mines and Monoliths doing so (and having a reason to) for years now.

apwill4765 wrote:Maybe you didn't notice, but GBF's last argument was:

"Hey, if terminators never do it, why should the Mawloc?"

Klawz wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The poll option A is only ahead by 20 percent. It's just these people are very vocal. The rules regarding deep strike are simple and very easy to understand. Option A is RAIWITB.

G

But you have no argument that has not been invalidated. Also, no other argument other people have posted you have responded to.

Mannahnin wrote:Steve, I really think GW thought it was obvious. This is what the Mawloc is meant to do. And they thought the precedent of the Spore Mine would mean everyone would know right way that this is the idea.

It could be clearer, and I know it discomfits a lot of people as it's not the way previous DSing stuff (with the notable exceptions of Spore Mines and the Monolith) tended to work, but it really looks like this is how it works.

Happy?

apwill4765 wrote:

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

C'mon man, anywhere, as in, during deepstrike the model may be placed anywhere on the table.

It was a subtle and humorous reference to the only sentence that has ever really mattered in this whole darn mess of a RAW argument.

I fully agree that anywhere is clearly noted in the Deep Strike rules in the BrB. And that would be fine and dandy if that was the only section in which you looked to determine Deep Strike. However it isn't,

Deep Strike----->Reserves------>Movement Phase

That is the path a player must take in order to Deep Strike. Each one of those steps refines how you Deep Strike. You can throw out the term ANYWHERE all you want as RAW, but you would then be showing that you are locked into a tunnel vision view of the rule so that it works out the way you want.

Pika_power wrote:Anyway, my models' heads=//=the table.

Neither is a hill!

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

C'mon man, anywhere, as in, during deepstrike the model may be placed anywhere on the table.

It was a subtle and humorous reference to the only sentence that has ever really mattered in this whole darn mess of a RAW argument.

I fully agree that anywhere is clearly noted in the Deep Strike rules in the BrB. And that would be fine and dandy if that was the only section in which you looked to determine Deep Strike. However it isn't,

Deep Strike----->Reserves------>Movement Phase

That is the path a player must take in order to Deep Strike. Each one of those steps refines how you Deep Strike. You can throw out the term ANYWHERE all you want as RAW, but you would then be showing that you are locked into a tunnel vision view of the rule so that it works out the way you want.

Anywhere is pretty much the opposite of tunnel vision. The whole argument is right there. It's placed anywhere. Not, anywhere it could normally be placed. See how that would be "anywhere" with limiting qualifications, and therefore not "anywhere". It doesn't say that, it says "anywhere".

And when they say "anywhere" they really really mean "anywhere". I promise.

I don't know how to break it down further when we are talking about one word.

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

Hello people! Giant wall of text, hello!

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written

ANYWHERE


can we lock this thread too, these arguements are pointless and circular.

Gee my hand just took a S6 AP2 hit.

So if I pick my models up, nothing in the rules to say I can't, during your phase, you can't shoot them or DS on them.

LOL. Geez.

agnosto wrote:Gee my hand just took a S6 AP2 hit.

So if I pick my models up, nothing in the rules to say I can't, during your phase, you can't shoot them or DS on them.

LOL. Geez.

What the heck are you talking about? How do you get from the RAW to whatever you're spouting.

apwill4765 wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

You are only quoting PART of the rules and as I pointed out, you are locked in on anywhere from the Deep Strike rules when I clearly pointed out per RAW that the Deep Strike rules are not the only rules you have to look at when you Deep Strike. Sure you are quoting ANYWHERE with all your might, but then are totally disregarding the rules for Reserves and Movement Phase, both of which are part of the Deep Strike process.

Yes. I'm disregarding them because deepstrike overrules them, by saying i can place my model anywhere.

Similarly, when I deploy my Mawloc on top of your models, I ignore the mishap rules even though I'm deepstriking, because Mawloc's rules override the mishap rules.

Anywhere overrides impassable terrain
Mawloc overrides mishap table

Get it?

There is nothing in the deep strike rules specifying that it disregards the basic rules.

Please follow the tenents of YMDC, or don't post.

A White Dwarf batrep...

































HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

muwhe wrote:Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

Bla_Ze wrote:There is nothing in the deep strike rules specifying that it disregards the basic rules.

Please follow the tenents of YMDC, or don't post.

Except the part where it specifically tells you you may place your models anywhere on the board. And the only one here who hasn't provided a RAW argument is you, so maybe you should try heeding your own advice.

Sorry i know this is the wrong place but anyway,

I have heard Space marine veterans MKII are illegal but i then also heard that if you throw in a sarge they make a legal squad can anyone confirm this for me..


Thanks

COURAGE AND HONOUR!

You are correct this is the wrong place. Make a separate thread for it.

I don't even understand the question...

ye but can you tell me.......

Deathuponthetainted wrote:ye but can you tell me.......

No, mainly because I cannot make heads nor tails of what you are trying to ask.

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

You are only quoting PART of the rules and as I pointed out, you are locked in on anywhere from the Deep Strike rules when I clearly pointed out per RAW that the Deep Strike rules are not the only rules you have to look at when you Deep Strike. Sure you are quoting ANYWHERE with all your might, but then are totally disregarding the rules for Reserves and Movement Phase, both of which are part of the Deep Strike process.

Hmm, I really wish I had my rulebook with me now, cause this just doesn't read right. I would think that the Reserves rules are only part of the 'Deep Strike process', whatever that is, insofar as to say that certain models, when held in Reserve may Deep Strike. At which point you follow all of the rules for Deep Strike. I'm not sure how you intended the Reserves rules to somehow preclude one from DS'ing onto an enemy unit/model.

I'm also not sure where you're going with referencing the Movement phase. Yes, deep strike does occur during the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does have rules pertaining to impassible terrain, not moving within 1'', etc. All of these are true. Deep Strike however, is a very specific rule mechanic that overrules these general Movement restrictions. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, 'anywhere' truly does mean 'anywhere', and it really is that important! There are no subsequent restrictions such as, 'per the usual model placement rules laid out in the Movement phase section of the rulebook'.

Just curious, does everyone here agree that a Monolith can deep strike directly onto an enemy model/unit? By directly, I don't mean hoping for a good scatter, I mean holding the Monolith directly over an enemy unit/model and hoping for a hit or small scatter. If so, what's the difference between this and the Mawloc? There really is no difference.

While it may be tactically stupid to deep strike directly onto an enemy unit/model, there are exceptions to this. Not only do the current incarnation of the rules allow for this, but we have clearly established precedent allowing it. How you and Bla_Ze can continue to insist otherwise is...odd.

-Yad

They are terrified of Terror From the Deep.

Becuase its not a movement restriction? Its just a general terrain rule.

We are talking RAW here, and nothing actually say deep striking ignores the normal rules, "anywhere" does not prove anything.

Edit:

They are terrified of Terror From the Deep.

wut? I don't see this as having any relevance, both me and my group plays it that you can place it "anywhere".

Bla_Ze FTW.

G

Pika_power wrote:White Dwarf is notorious for playing games wrongly and against RAW and FAQs.

He was not referring to RAW in saying read the WD he was saying the author of the codex was playing it the way he intended it to be played. He was talking about RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It does strike me a funny that these same vocal people have not said a word when the the necron player has been DSing his monoliths straight on to models for years. It strikes me as very telling that the anti RAI crowd has to argue that anywhere does not mean anywhere and wants a firm defining of "table". lol!

If that's his intent then their FAQ will say so. Care to make a wager?

G

Bla_Ze wrote:Becuase its not a movement restriction? Its just a general terrain rule.

We are talking RAW here, and nothing actually say deep striking ignores the normal rules, "anywhere" does not prove anything.

How can a rule saying that I can't enter impassible terrain be anything other than a restriction on Movement?

I do think that Deep Striking is a form of Movement and as such should adhere to all relevant movement rules (and restrictions). Because the DS rule mechanic allows you to place anywhere on the table, it creates an exception to all of those restrictions. It is complete cognitive dissonance for you to insist that the Mawloc cannot do this while maintaining that the Monolith can. Unless of course, you don't think the Monolith can DS onto enemy units/models. Or for that matter no models can do so. At which point I'd give you props for being consistently wrong.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

You are only quoting PART of the rules and as I pointed out, you are locked in on anywhere from the Deep Strike rules when I clearly pointed out per RAW that the Deep Strike rules are not the only rules you have to look at when you Deep Strike. Sure you are quoting ANYWHERE with all your might, but then are totally disregarding the rules for Reserves and Movement Phase, both of which are part of the Deep Strike process.

Hmm, I really wish I had my rulebook with me now, cause this just doesn't read right. I would think that the Reserves rules are only part of the 'Deep Strike process', whatever that is, insofar as to say that certain models, when held in Reserve may Deep Strike. At which point you follow all of the rules for Deep Strike. I'm not sure how you intended the Reserves rules to somehow preclude one from DS'ing onto an enemy unit/model.

I'm also not sure where you're going with referencing the Movement phase. Yes, deep strike does occur during the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does have rules pertaining to impassible terrain, not moving within 1'', etc. All of these are true. Deep Strike however, is a very specific rule mechanic that overrules these general Movement restrictions. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, 'anywhere' truly does mean 'anywhere', and it really is that important! There are no subsequent restrictions such as, 'per the usual model placement rules laid out in the Movement phase section of the rulebook'.

Just curious, does everyone here agree that a Monolith can deep strike directly onto an enemy model/unit? By directly, I don't mean hoping for a good scatter, I mean holding the Monolith directly over an enemy unit/model and hoping for a hit or small scatter. If so, what's the difference between this and the Mawloc? There really is no difference.

While it may be tactically stupid to deep strike directly onto an enemy unit/model, there are exceptions to this. Not only do the current incarnation of the rules allow for this, but we have clearly established precedent allowing it. How you and Bla_Ze can continue to insist otherwise is...odd.

-Yad

Without Reserves or the Movement Phase, you cannot Deep Strike. That is why I listed them as the path needed to Deep Strike.

To keep screaming out anywhere, anywhere, anywhere is not following RAW. The Deep Strike rule, on its own, is unplayable. Please, tell me how you can Deep Strike without having the Reserves or the Movement Phase? Reserves tells you how/when and Movement tells you how/when. They refine how Deep Strike is used so that it is playable.

To say that ANYWHERE is the override is wrong since the rule does not end with Deep Strike and ANYWHERE. It is overridden by whatever may be in the Reserve rules and then overridden by whatever is in the Movement Phase, including on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Steve, a beer says that when GW eventually FAQs it, IF they say anything at all, they will rule that Mawlocs can strike right onto enemy units.